I predict it would form because of the free rider problem associated with military protection. If I pay for military protection, I also want my neighbor to pay his "fair share" since he is receiving the same protection. Therefore, a central authority must exist to make him pay for this service he otherwise has no incentive to pay.

I predict it would form because of the free rider problem associated with military protection. If I pay for military protection, I also want my neighbor to pay his "fair share" since he is receiving the same protection. Therefore, a central authority must exist to make him pay for this service he otherwise has no incentive to pay.

In 'easy-movement' scenarios, this objection is basically null and void.

Suppose that we're talking a seastead or a spacestead, two scenarios in which movement costs are cheap to the point of near non-existence compared to the cost of moving a domicile on land.

When moving a domicile under easy-movement conditions, it would be a simple thing to band together all the people willing to pay for military protection and exclude those unwilling, resulting in a purge of free-riders, effectively removing their free-rider status entirely. Might as well rename them: open game.

Even if easy-movement weren't a consideration there are other ways to deal with the free-rider problem that do not require a central authority in the form of ad hoc association and agreement, which could also be implemented on land-based society. This can be done through mutual agreement ahead of time. So, if A wants to move to X city, he must agree up-front to pay for defense-related fees if a condition of war or emergency, or w/e, is declared. This is a rule that everyone in X city agrees to as a condition of buying property or renting there. If they don't like it, they can leave or move their property. And failure to live up to it would mean something like excommunication from the soceity as a promise breaker, should the society survive the attack.

David Friedman goes over a few structural ways to minimize free riders as well, in the way of agreements which trigger only if a suitably large proportion of the residents agree to abide by the agreement. Thus, you could have people enter into an agreement to donate say $N a month for defense of the city until the danger passes or w/e, but that first payment only kicks in if 90% or 100% (or w/e) of the city agrees to it, at which point they'll have enough funding to buy mercenaries for defense.

The major problem there is when dangers have become so long-standing that the mercenaries turned on their patrons, often for non-payment, and force entered the picture in that way. But this is a problem that singular city-states of the past faced and if you had allied city-states it would likely be less a problem, for the other allies could come to your rescue with their security forces, etc.

The final downfall of Roman (Byzantium) was through non-payment of the Crusader mercenaries whom first handed power to one prince then sacked the city when they didn't get paid. And previous to that they'd had a lot of trouble trying to reign in the Venetian sailors after first giving them free-trade status for hundreds of years, making them wealthy, then trying to take it back :P

, how is than state - a legal monopoly of force in given geographical area, gonna form again in a voluntary, free society and free markets? And how is it desirable?

It's desireable because it serves the only function which monopoly is good for: war. If a territory's entire system of nat'l defense consisted of a handful or perhaps a plethora of self-defense companies, it would be difficult for them to coordinate with each other in times of war. That is assuming that they would even have incentive to coordinate with each other; a state could pay off a company to not fight for the territory. This is not possible with a state military because that military bears sole responsibility for the national territory. Also states invest in weaponry in times of peace - either for preparedness or for imperialism, but it's all the same. In order that a defense company invested, during peacetime in tanks, airplanes, and submarines it would have to be bizarrely rich and totally disconnected from consumer wants. Those two do not often go together. Consumer satisfaction does not demand airplanes to investigate a home invasion. A company doing that would be basically wasting its money: investing on something which serves no peacetime purpose. Of course companies might start investing in war weapons while war occurs, but would it not then be too late? A coordinated state-military may very well have invaded and asserted its control already, having had total air dominance. War requires a centralized coordination of strategy and resources, so that none of its components can be bribed off, so that cooperation is maximal, so that information and decision-making is fast, and most importantly so that weaponry can unprofitably be acquired before it is needed.

As a minarchist, I don`t think the government should have a legal monopoly on force. I.e. I don`t think anyone should be allowed to initiate force, and the minarchist government should only intervene(assist the victims of the initiation of force, in their self-defence) when someone initiates force.

Right, I am familiar with this point which is something different from my main point - when once removed monopoly will not form for any significant time in a free market.

Now regarding free-rider problem, I don't understand quite how is it a problem. Secondly this kind of thinking is somehow territoriality based, which wouldn't be important in free-market system, right? Agencies wouldn't protect territory, rather they would protect people and property.

I don't see how is war a reason for having a state, or how does it make desirable. Isn't absence of war a desirable condition? Don't we have permanent war nowadays, with a state, especially you in US!? I guess we all know how unprofitable wars are anyways, right? I mean today costs a highly dispersed and profits even more highly concentrated, in a free markets it wouldn't be so.

Well I think Johnny Doe here is on to something important. My I ask you how is minarchist state not still a monopoly of force, violence!?

I mean, this is main reason for me to be against any kind of state, it is in it's essence a monopoly of violence, isn't it? I mean this is not me speaking, it is rather widely excepted definition of state, and precise on if you ask me :)

As a minarchist, I don`t think the government should have a legal monopoly on force.

Well, that's a problem then, because the government by virtue of existing stands as a continual aggression against the citizens it rules. Can you, under a government, start a competing jurisdiction over your land and any who join with you? Or will they simply arrest you and impose upon you--they will. Can you demand that the government defend itself in a lawsuit with you in a truly independent court, or does the government demand that any and all suits involving it be decided in its own courts? It does. Thus, it is continual aggression.

Johnny Doe:

I.e. I don`t think anyone should be allowed to initiate force, and the minarchist government should only intervene(assist the victims of the initiation of force, in their self-defence) when someone initiates force.

The gov stands as continual aggression against the citizens it farms. Will it protect us against itself? It cannot.

Of course war is terrible and undesireable. But that doesn't mean that we as people don't have to deal with it. Sometimes people just invade. Like Americans, Russians, Brits, etc. You're acting as though, if it were up to me, I'd be a warmonger minarchist. I wouldn't. I'm just making the point that minarchy provides for nat'l defense in a way that anarchism can not.

Think on this: if anarchism is such a good answer to statism, does that not make it enemy #1 of all states which seek to preserve their legitimacy?

It's nice, but ultimately a desperate and unsuccessful attempt. The author clearly acknowledges the crux of the issue in the beginning of the article: Volungrazia would be to the nation-states as France was to the Monarchies and as Communist Russia was to the nation-states: a fledgling territory whose success would sap the legitimacy from the foundations of the governing paradigms, thus a gigantic bullseye. He goes on then, after admitting that volunteer efforts aren't always reliable, to assume the volunteeristic spirit of the people of Volungrazia, law agencies in particular!

But if it is true that Volungrazia is public enemy #1 of the democratic peoples of Earth, why ought we to assume that the executives of law agencies will be educated, strong of character and pure of heart? States and their business extensions already control the wealth of the world. Is it unreasonable to assume that said extensions will not try to graft themselves onto the legal structures of Volungrazia? They would have no reason not to.

As Napoleonic France and Trotsky-Leninist Russia had the means to impose enormous costs, absolute law (or something like it) and raise a standing army with officiality, Volungrazia has nonesuch options. It relies on the good-heartedness, devotion to statelessness and foresight not only of the common stateless man but also the stateless business elite! And as stateless societies will have no sort of economic protectionism that might incentivize businesses to take on a nationalistic character, why should the stateless business elite have any allegiance to Volungrazia, when states will doubtless offer them a cozy package for their cooperation?

It's Vietnam all over again. Except with 1st worlders living in a developed division of labor, with no global allies to think of, and bullseye of any state and its military which seeks to preserve itself.

In order that a defense company invested, during peacetime in tanks, airplanes, and submarines it would have to be bizarrely rich and totally disconnected from consumer wants. Those two do not often go together. Consumer satisfaction does not demand airplanes to investigate a home invasion. A company doing that would be basically wasting its money: investing on something which serves no peacetime purpose.

I own guns in peacetime because they serve a purpose in my eyes. They provide security. They make a home invasion or an attack on the street more survivable. I will patronize a defense company that has tanks and jets before I will patronize a company that does not have the best weaponry around.

This is doubly true for those who live in Key West or Alaska where they are much closer to likely invasion points.

And what happens if there is a dispute between defense companies with wildly different capabilities? The company that only has small arms will not be able to compete favorably with the company that has armored cars. The company that only has armored cars cannot compete with the company that has tanks. The company that only has tanks cannot compete with the company that has attack helicopters. And so on. The market will dictate that defense companies compete on both price and capability. We cannot possibly know ahead of time where that balance lies.

An no, I am not assuming war will always rage, but occasional conflicts will arise, as they do today.

But it doesn't until it does. You don't need such things during peacetime. Fighter planes, missile defense technology and weapons research are all wildly expensive. Would you really expect someone, faced with the two peacetime options of paying a subscription to cops and paying a subscription to cops, weapons researchers, fighter pilot producers and pilots, to pay for the latter? And why should they when maybe some rich person will pay for the latter and the air force / army would fight the invading forces regardless of what they paid?

And what happens if there is a dispute between defense companies with wildly different capabilities? The company that only has small arms will not be able to compete favorably with the company that has armored cars. The company that only has armored cars cannot compete with the company that has tanks. The company that only has tanks cannot compete with the company that has attack helicopters. And so on. The market will dictate that defense companies compete on both price and capability. We cannot possibly know ahead of time where that balance lies.

No one pays for defense agencies to quarrel with each other. That isn't their purpose as advertised. That all costs money and employees. What kind of mercenary will stick around, fighting for a corporation with dwindling revenue.

Anyways, not that I think that your scenario is plausible given the nature of spontaneous order and market outcomes, but how is this a defense at all for statelessness? You're essentially imposing the "Wouldn't warlords take over?" accusation on yourself.

But it doesn't until it does. You don't need such things during peacetime.

Then I guess I don't need heath insurance until I am sick...

Would you really expect someone, faced with the two peacetime options of paying a subscription to cops and paying a subscription to cops, weapons researchers, fighter pilot producers and pilots, to pay for the latter? And why should they when maybe some rich person will pay for the latter and the air force / army would fight the invading forces regardless of what they paid?

Possibly. Value is subjective after all.

But, this is probably the wrong argument to make. I think Murphy's Chaos Theory has a better argument.

The framework described in the first section avoids these apparent difficulties. In a free society, it is not the average person, but rather the insurance companies, that would purchase defense services. Every dollar in damage caused by foreign aggression would be fully compensated, and thus insurers would seek to protect their customers’ property as if it were their own. Because of economies of scale, coverage for large geographical regions would likely be handled through a few dominant firms, ensuring standardized pricing and a coordinated defense.

So you can either purchase invasion insurance (along with other insurance) and fund defense services indirectly, or you can forgo invasion insurance and take the risk that your house, your business or your airport gets blown up without coverage.

As for free riders:

But make no mistake, military defense would be adequately funded, for the simple reason that shareholders of rich companies are anything but reckless when it comes to money. Because of their size, the biggest companies couldn’t ignore the effect of their own behavior on military preparedness. Furthermore, certain types of property—airports, bridges, highways, power plants, and of course, military equipment—would be far likelier targets of foreign attack, and their owners would thus constitute an even smaller group to benefit disproportionately from defense expenditures. This heterogeneity would weaken further the “spillover” character of defense services, making an efficient arrangement all the easier to achieve. Those companies that ended up paying the most might perceive the arrangement as unfair, but there would nevertheless always be an arrangement. The highest contributors might even advertise this fact, much as large corporations make ostentatious donations to charity in order to curry goodwill.

No one pays for defense agencies to quarrel with each other. That isn't their purpose as advertised. That all costs money and employees. What kind of mercenary will stick around, fighting for a corporation with dwindling revenue.

Are you saying that conflicts will never take place between defense companies? That seems unlikely.

Anyways, not that I think that your scenario is plausible given the nature of spontaneous order and market outcomes, but how is this a defense at all for statelessness? You're essentially imposing the "Wouldn't warlords take over?" accusation on yourself.

You must not have seen my last sentence:

And no, I am not assuming war will always rage, but occasional conflicts will arise, as they do today.

False comparison. The medical industry must produce certain goods to treat illnesses because some people get cancer and some don't. It's not an on/off switch of everyone having cancer and everyone not having cancer. This, however, is the case in war.

Possibly. Value is subjective after all.

Maybe I can sell a turd sandwich for $800.

The framework described in the first section avoids these apparent difficulties. In a free society, it is not the average person, but rather the insurance companies, that would purchase defense services. Every dollar in damage caused by foreign aggression would be fully compensated, and thus insurers would seek to protect their customers’ property as if it were their own. Because of economies of scale, coverage for large geographical regions would likely be handled through a few dominant firms, ensuring standardized pricing and a coordinated defense.

"There is always a solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken

Insurance companies will have to start buying all of these defense goods on the premise that people will subscribe to them. Likely it would only be a few companies given the enormous cost of providing defense. But why should person A pay for the insurance when person B is paying for it? Either way the insurance companies will act as a nat'l defense and fight off the aggressor?

And the centralization of control over nat'l defense in Volungrazia lends itself to nation-states striking deals with one of the few companies. Just one 'agreement' would injure the stateless defense badly.Insurance companies, being a plurality of bodies funding nat'l defense do not burden themselves with the total responsibility for the defense of the territory, only some of it. Therefore, one of them can skip out and leave the others holding the bag. This is not possible when only one agency is responsible for defense.

And before you call me paranoid about insurance companies being bribed, recall that during the communist revolution, every democratic state sent forces to Russia during WWI to try and quell the Red Army. Why exactly should this not apply to Volungrazia?

So you can either purchase invasion insurance (along with other insurance) and fund defense services indirectly, or you can forgo invasion insurance and take the risk that your house, your business or your airport gets blown up without coverage.

The latter being a risk for both oneself and one's neighbor, as the defense force is that much weaker.

As for free riders:

But make no mistake, military defense would be adequately funded, for the simple reason that shareholders of rich companies are anything but reckless when it comes to money. Because of their size, the biggest companies couldn’t ignore the effect of their own behavior on military preparedness. Furthermore, certain types of property—airports, bridges, highways, power plants, and of course, military equipment—would be far likelier targets of foreign attack, and their owners would thus constitute an even smaller group to benefit disproportionately from defense expenditures. This heterogeneity would weaken further the “spillover” character of defense services, making an efficient arrangement all the easier to achieve. Those companies that ended up paying the most might perceive the arrangement as unfair, but there would nevertheless always be an arrangement. The highest contributors might even advertise this fact, much as large corporations make ostentatious donations to charity in order to curry goodwill.

Assuming that these large companies have any allegiance whatsoever to the territory they are situated in. This would not be a protectionist economy. It would be a global economy. Thus it is subject to the buying and selling of shares by shareholders who live in democracies, many of which are extensions of those governing bodies.

Are you saying that conflicts will never take place between defense companies? That seems unlikely.

Just as unlikely as businesses sell their products above the market price. It happens sure, but the higgling of the market produces a stable outcome (draining funds of the aggressors).

You must not have seen my last sentence:

And no, I am not assuming war will always rage, but occasional conflicts will arise, as they do today.

Sorry Jargon if I made it sound as if you were warmonger, rather that state is war, if it is up to history. War is health of state, remember that!? :) So it is not like as it is a solution, it is in fact big part of a problem. Please read the book, it is actually a collection of answers to same or similar questions.

"When considering statist objections to anarchic solutions, the six questions below are most useful.

Does the government actually solve the problem in question?

People often say that government courts “solve” the problem of injustice. However, these courts can take many years to render a verdict – and cost the plaintiff and defendant hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Government courts are also used to harass and intimidate, creating a “chilling effect” for unpopular opinions or groups. Thus I find it essential to question the embedded premises of statism:

- Do State armies actually defend citizens?

- Does State policing actually protect private property?

- Does State welfare actually solve the problem of poverty?

- Does the war on drugs actually solve the problem of addiction and crime?

- Do State prisons actually rehabilitate prisoners and reduce crime?

It can be very tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that the existing statist approach is actually a solution – but I try to avoid taking that for granted, since it is so rarely the case.

Can the criticism of the anarchic solution be equally applied to the statist solution?

One of the most common objections to a stateless society is the fear that a political monopoly could somehow emerge from a free market of competing justice agencies. In other words, anarchism is rejected because it contains the mere possibility of political monopoly. However, if political monopoly is such a terrible evil, then a statist society – which is founded on just such a political monopoly – must be rejected even more firmly, just as we would always choose the mere possibility of cancer over actually having cancer.

Is anarchy accepted as a core value in nonpolitical spheres?

In my last book, “Everyday Anarchy,” I pointed out the numerous spheres in society where anarchy is both valued and defended, such as dating, career choices, education and so on. If anarchy is dismissed as “bad” overall, then it also must be “bad” in these other spheres as well. Unless the person criticizing anarchy is willing to advocate for a Ministry of Dating, the value of anarchy in certain spheres must at least be recognized. Thus anarchy cannot be rejected as an overall negative – and its admitted value and productivity must at least be accepted as potentially valuable in other spheres as well.

Would the person advocating statism perform State functions himself?

Most of us recognize and accept the right to use violence in an extremity of self-defense. Those who support statism recognize that, in this realm, State police merely formalize a right that everyone already has, namely the right of self-defense. A policeman can use force to protect a citizen from being attacked, just as that citizen can use force himself. However, if someone argues that it is moral to use force to take money from people to pay for public schools, would he be willing to use this force himself? Would he be willing to go door to door with a gun to extract money for public schools? Would he be willing to extend this right to everyone in society? If not, then he has created two opposing ethical categories – the State police, to whom this use of violence is moral – and everyone else, to whom this use of violence is immoral. How can these opposing moral categories be justified?

Can something be both voluntary and coercive at the same time?

Everyone recognizes that an act cannot be both “rape” and “lovemaking” simultaneously. Rape requires force, because the victim is unwilling; lovemaking does not. Because no action can be both voluntary and coercive at the same time, statists cannot appeal to the principle of “voluntarism” when defending the violence of the State. Statists cannot say that we “agree” to be taxed, and then say that taxation must be coercive. If we agree to taxation, the coercion is unnecessary – if we do not agree to taxation, then we are coerced against our will.

Does political organization change human nature?

If people care enough about the poor to vote for state welfare programs, then they will care enough about the poor to fund private charities. If people care enough about the uneducated to vote for state schools, they will care enough to donate to private schools. Removing the State does not fundamentally alter human nature. The benevolence and wisdom that democracy relies on will not be magically transformed into cold selfishness the moment that the State ends. Statism relies on maturity and benevolence on the part of the voters, the politicians, and government workers. If this maturity and benevolence is not present, the State is a mere brutal tyranny, and must be abolished. If the majority of people are mature and benevolent – as I believe – then the State is an unnecessary overhead, and far too prone to violent injustices to be allowed to continue. In other words, people cannot be called “virtuous” only when it serves the statist argument, and then “selfish” when it does not.

There are a number of other principles, which are more specific to particular circumstances, but the six described above will show up repeatedly.

We will now take a quick tour through an overview of anarchism, and sketch in broad strokes the beginnings of our solutions to the horrors of worldwide violence."

Sorry Jargon if I made it sound as if you were warmonger, rather that state is war, if it is up to history. War is health of state, remember that!? :) So it is not like as it is a solution, it is in fact big part of a problem. Please read the book, it is actually a collection of answers to same or similar questions.

No offense taken.It is indeed the health of the state. But it is also rarely the decision of the invaded when/if the foreigner invades

EDIT:

But I do take slightly more offense to you, in response to my points, quoting the preface from an Intro to Anarchy pamphlet as though I hadn't heard the arguments.

False comparison. The medical industry must produce certain goods to treat illnesses because some people get cancer and some don't. It's not an on/off switch of everyone having cancer and everyone not having cancer. This, however, is the case in war

No it isn't. Wars (conflict by any name) can be large or small.

Insurance companies will have to start buying all of these defense goods on the premise that people will subscribe to them. Likely it would only be a few companies given the enormous cost of providing defense. But why should person A pay for the insurance when person B is paying for it?

You answer your own question.

Assuming that these large companies have any allegiance whatsoever to the territory they are situated in. This would not be a protectionist economy. It would be a global economy. Thus it is subject to the buying and selling of shares by shareholders who live in democracies, many of which are extensions of those governing bodies.

So even though each person would hope or expect to gain from protection services purchased by their neighbors, they cannot count of their protection unless they are subscribers. Just as I enjoy using free versions of software. I can get some value for free, but I have to pay for the premium features. Similarly, I benefit from others who carry concealed weapons. But if I do get attacked, I will be even better off if I carry a weapon myself.

Just as unlikely as businesses sell their products above the market price. It happens sure, but the higgling of the market produces a stable outcome (draining funds of the aggressors).

Indeed. We agree.

The latter being a risk for both oneself and one's neighbor, as the defense force is that much weaker.

What?

I read it but your rationale beforehand contradicts it.

Nonsense. I never said anything that would imply that one company would "take over". I was illustrating how companies would compete to have the best weaponry. Just as all other businesses compete to provide the best services at the lowest cost.

And another point is that defense companies need only prepare for defense. They can buy defensive measures like anti-aircraft missiles far cheaper than the aggressor can buy airplanes. The same is true for land mines, sea mines, coastal guns, etc. All these defensive measures are much cheaper because they don't have to travel across the world to be put into action. And since they are produced in a free market, they will be even more affordable than their statist counterparts. Add the difficulty and expense of foreign occupations and it will be very difficult for a state to conquer and hold a free market society.

And finally, these extremely expensive weapons already exist. If the state were to implode or wither away, there will be a local surplus of weaponry that can used for defense. And since it is already here, it is cheaper for it to remain here, rather than ship it to buyers around the world.

That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that, regardless of whether you have cancer right now, someone in your country does. People get cancer at different times. Their experiences overlap. Thus the medical industry must continually produce solutions. With a declaration of war, an entire nation suddenly goes from 'at peace' to 'at war'. Ya dig?

You answer your own question.

Walk me through it.

So even though each person would hope or expect to gain from protection services purchased by their neighbors, they cannot count of their protection unless they are subscribers. Just as I enjoy using free versions of software. I can get some value for free, but I have to pay for the premium features. Similarly, I benefit from others who carry concealed weapons. But if I do get attacked, I will be even better off if I carry a weapon myself.

That's not my point. My point is that regardless of whether someone is a subscriber or not to a defense insurance company, that company, existing on the open market, is vulnerable to bribery, ownership and/or influence from states and their extensions. Meaning that insurance company may just bail out on you because the CEO is not dying for some idealistic historical experiment.

What?

The less people give to insurance companies, the less weapons those companies can buy. Free riders weaken defense.

Nonsense. I never said anything that would imply that one company would "take over". I was illustrating how companies would compete to have the best weaponry. Just as all other businesses compete to provide the best services at the lowest cost.

But services don't compete in terms of weaponry which doesn't cater to the function of the company as advertised.

And another point is that defense companies need only prepare for defense. They can buy defensive measures like anti-aircraft missiles far cheaper than the aggressor can buy airplanes. The same is true for land mines, sea mines, coastal guns, etc. All these defensive measures are much cheaper because they don't have to travel across the world to be put into action. And since they are produced in a free market, they will be even more affordable than their statist counterparts. Add the difficulty and expense of foreign occupations and it will be very difficult for a state to conquer and hold a free market society.

Are land mines, artillery and 1st world guerillas enough to hold off tanks, battleships, aircraft carriers and special forces?

Well I think Johnny Doe here is on to something important. My I ask you how is minarchist state not still a monopoly of force, violence!?

Because self-defence, i.e. the use of force in self-defence is legal, even today. And a minarchist state doesn`t intervene in the economy/trade/distribution, i.e. a minarchist government doesn`t regulate non-coerceive activities.

zg7666:

I mean, this is main reason for me to be against any kind of state, it is in it's essence a monopoly of violence, isn't it?

No, it isn`t, i.e. people have the right to use force to defend themselves from violence, even i todays society.

zg7666:

.I mean this is not me speaking, it is rather widely excepted definition of state, and precise on if you ask me :)

I don`t have a problem with the/a state, as long as it remains passive, when/if people do not initiate violence.

As a minarchist, I don`t think the government should have a legal monopoly on force.

Well, that's a problem then, because the government by virtue of existing stands as a continual aggression against the citizens it rules. Can you, under a government, start a competing jurisdiction over your land and any who join with you?

You`re asking if you can defend yourself, or hire someone to defend you? Can`t you do that even in todays society?

Anenome:

Or will they simply arrest you and impose upon you--they will.

Why would a minarchist government arrest you?

Anenome:

Can you demand that the government defend itself in a lawsuit with you in a truly independent court, or does the government demand that any and all suits involving it be decided in its own courts? It does. Thus, it is continual aggression.

What should a minarchist government defend itself against?

Anenome:

Johnny Doe:

I.e. I don`t think anyone should be allowed to initiate force, and the minarchist government should only intervene(assist the victims of the initiation of force, in their self-defence) when someone initiates force.

The gov stands as continual aggression against the citizens it farms. Will it protect us against itself? It cannot.

It`s an idea, a culture, i.e. that a minarchist government, i.e. a government/police force that only intervens after someone i society initiates viloence, it`s not a guarentee, just like a full blown anarchy ain`t no guarantee against violence.

That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that, regardless of whether you have cancer right now, someone in your country does. People get cancer at different times. Their experiences overlap. Thus the medical industry must continually produce solutions. With a declaration of war, an entire nation suddenly goes from 'at peace' to 'at war'. Ya dig?

And defense agencies continually produce security. The mere existence of a weapon can be its function, as a deterrent. People purchase a detergent because the think that their life depends on it. Some people will take the extra risk to free ride, others will spend a little more to minimize their risk.

That's not my point. My point is that regardless of whether someone is a subscriber or not to a defense insurance company, that company, existing on the open market, is vulnerable to bribery, ownership and/or influence from states and their extensions. Meaning that insurance company may just bail out on you because the CEO is not dying for some idealistic historical experiment.

The same is true any any defense entity, state operated or otherwise.

The less people give to insurance companies, the less weapons those companies can buy. Free riders weaken defense.

Don't you see that there is feedback here? If only one person pays for defense, the whole rest of the country cannot possibly think that they can free ride on that small defense expenditure. So more people will buy in out of concern for their safety. And more people will buy in until all the people left free riding think that they are reasonably safe. And if the perceived threats diminish, more people will cancel their subscriptions. It is just like concealed carry. The more dangerous a city is, the more people will feel the need to carry. As the danger level drops, more people will leave their guns at home.

And statist solutions have free riders too, along with all the other problems that comes with statism. Like the inability to calculate.

But services don't compete in terms of weaponry which doesn't cater to the function of the company as advertised.

Ok. Defense companies are in the defense business. Defensive weapons are part of their function. You seem to think that defense companies won't advertise the capability to defend your home from large attacks. You have no way of knowing that. If people demand defense, it will be sold to them. I assume people demand defense against large attacks. I guess you don't share that assumption. But if people don't demand defense, why would they use the guns of the state to steal wealth from their fellow citizens in order to buy it?

Are land mines, artillery and 1st world guerillas enough to hold off tanks, battleships, aircraft carriers and special forces?

I assume so, but I don't really know. These companies will be run by people more expert than I. They will choose the weapons that they think are most cost effective. Some customers may like stealth bombers while others like small arms. These firms will take that into account.

Of course, force in self-defense is lets say moral. Minarchist government, state is still a monopoly of violence, because it has to collect taxes? Right? In order to even exists it has to collect taxes and if I don't want to give them my money they will take it by force (which is robbery or extortion), even in most minimal states. How is it not initiation of force?

"I don`t have a problem with the/a state, as long as it remains passive, when/if people do not initiate violence." - Is there any example of minimal states existing for any significant period of time and staying small!?

To me it's not a question about if a state is beneficial, effecient, voluntary, and certainly not moral or not - it's about action imperatives and how the consequences unfold by necessity, and what "spook" gets thrown in the machinary that doesn't make any intelligible sense.

The politics, whether or not the state ought to be, etc, are the least important aspect of things - and are merely the last and most abstract look at a chain of consequence.

Does this make me an anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, or ultra conformist to whatever is in power? I have no clue, nor do I care.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

And defense agencies continually produce security. The mere existence of a weapon can be its function, as a deterrent. People purchase a detergent because the think that their life depends on it. Some people will take the extra risk to free ride, others will spend a little more to minimize their risk.

Go back and read the thread. You've gotten off topic.

The same is true any any defense entity, state operated or otherwise.

State defenses bear sole responsibility for defense. Thus it is nonsensical to try bribing one. To do so would be equivalent to offering vassalization. Their aims are not subject to entrepeneurial calculation.

Don't you see that there is feedback here? If only one person pays for defense, the whole rest of the country cannot possibly think that they can free ride on that small defense expenditure. So more people will buy in out of concern for their safety. And more people will buy in until all the people left free riding think that they are reasonably safe. And if the perceived threats diminish, more people will cancel their subscriptions. It is just like concealed carry. The more dangerous a city is, the more people will feel the need to carry. As the danger level drops, more people will leave their guns at home.

Oh really? What if they can't afford it (in the case that they have modeled their lifestyle around their income sans defense subscription, compared to the state-citizen with a lower standard of living but higher defense capability.)

You impute way too much to the average citizen. As if someone thinks that because there is a small risk of invasion 30 years in the future, they ought to pay an enormous cost until then, despite the fact that richer folks are already paying that.

And statist solutions have free riders too, along with all the other problems that comes with statism. Like the inability to calculate.

I'm aware.

Ok. Defense companies are in the defense business. Defensive weapons are part of their function. You seem to think that defense companies won't advertise the capability to defend your home from large attacks. You have no way of knowing that. If people demand defense, it will be sold to them. I assume people demand defense against large attacks. I guess you don't share that assumption.

Why should they? It's totally irrelevant to everyday life. Sure some people may pay to the outrageously more expensive agencies, but others will be aware of such payments and ask why they should pay.

But if people don't demand defense, why would they use the guns of the state to steal wealth from their fellow citizens in order to buy it?

Assuming that it is 'the people's voice' which dictates confiscation of private wealth into defense.

I assume so, but I don't really know.

Indeed

These companies will be run by people more expert than I. They will choose the weapons that they think are most cost effective. Some customers may like stealth bombers while others like small arms. These firms will take that into account.

To me it's not a question about if a state is beneficial, effecient, voluntary, and certainly not moral or not - it's about action imperatives and how the consequences unfold by necessity, and what "spook" gets thrown in the *machinery that doesn't make any intelligible sense.

I responded directly to your assertion that defense is not a continually provided solution like cancer treatment is. Defense (security) is indeed continually produced and consumed. If my response is off-topic, so is your assertion since they both discussed the same things.

State defenses bear sole responsibility for defense. Thus it is nonsensical to try bribing one. To do so would be equivalent to offering vassalization. Their aims are not subject to entrepeneurial calculation.

Says who? The state does what it does. It even kills its own people at times. You cannot say what it will or won't do.

Oh really? What if they can't afford it

Then they will have no choice but to free ride and hope they get lucky, just as they would under a state.

You impute way too much to the average citizen. As if someone thinks that because there is a small risk of invasion 30 years in the future, they ought to pay an enormous cost until then, despite the fact that richer folks are already paying that.

This is a false choice. There is a risk of invasion every day. If we knew that the risk was 30 years off, we would save our money until then (and so would the rich people).

And which is it, is the risk small or large? If it is large, they should see that it has bearing on their lives. If it is small, maybe they should save their money.

I'm aware.

Then you should stop wasting your time using criticisms of the anarchic solution which can be equally applied to the statist solution. (zg7666)

Why should they? It's totally irrelevant to everyday life.

Every day carries a risk of every possible danger. You cannot say that death is only relevant on the day you die. You must live everyday in such a way that you minimize your risks, or the day you die will be sooner rather than later. That is the whole point of insurance.

Sure some people may pay to the outrageously more expensive agencies, but others will be aware of such payments and ask why they should pay.

Right, people will buy what they value. If they value tanks, they will get tanks. If the don't, they wont.

Assuming that it is 'the people's voice' which dictates confiscation of private wealth into defense..

So the people will demand that they be taxed to pay for a service that the rich are "already paying for" and that the people themselves refuse to buy? Right...

What you meant to say is that the well connected members of the state will coerce the less connected members of the state into paying for their free stuff.

how is than state - a legal monopoly of force in given geographical area, gonna form again in a voluntary, free society and free markets? And how is it desirable?

If your assumptions are such that the entire society is "voluntary" and "free" and the state is whatever form of organized compulsion there might be, than it is impossible to conciliate both things. They are logically contradictory.

But no society is purely voluntary. People respect other choices insofar as it is to their own interest to do so.

So a state like apparatus can and will appear insofar a few people think there are still some gains to be made by bossing others around.

And of course these gains are not "net gains for the whole society", whatever that means.

Politics do not happen because "society needs politics".

Politics happen because politicians and similar creatures benefit from doing politics. "Whole society net gains"' are only afterthoughts for real politics intentions, whose substance lacks any meaning and is practically pure rhetorics.

Of course, force in self-defense is lets say moral. Minarchist government, state is still a monopoly of violence, because it has to collect taxes? Right? In order to even exists it has to collect taxes and if I don't want to give them my money they will take it by force (which is robbery or extortion), even in most minimal states. How is it not initiation of force?

What if most people in society voluntarily choose minarchism, and therefore want to pay for it voluntarily(can minarchism be implemented/maintained in any other way)?

zg7666:

Johnny Doe:

I don`t have a problem with the/a state, as long as it remains passive, when/if people do not initiate violence.

- Is there any example of minimal states existing for any significant period of time and staying small!?

I see minarchism as the lesser evil, i.e. not perfect, and not a guarantee against changing into any-/everything else. Is there any example of an anarchy existing for any significant period of time and staying an anarchy!?

I responded directly to your assertion that defense is not a continually provided solution like cancer treatment is. Defense (security) is indeed continually produced and consumed. If my response is off-topic, so is your assertion since they both discussed the same things.

Classic bait and switch. We both know I wasn't talking about peacetime defense. Please be more honest.

Says who? The state does what it does. It even kills its own people at times. You cannot say what it will or won't do.

Because a state's military cannot surrender itself without also surrendering its territory, which is untrue for a private agency which comprises a fraction of a defense force.

Then they will have no choice but to free ride and hope they get lucky, just as they would under a state.

You impute way too much to the average citizen. As if someone thinks that because there is a small risk of invasion 30 years in the future, they ought to pay an enormous cost until then, despite the fact that richer folks are already paying that.

This is a false choice. There is a risk of invasion every day. If we knew that the risk was 30 years off, we would save our money until then (and so would the rich people).

And which is it, is the risk small or large? If it is large, they should see that it has bearing on their lives. If it is small, maybe they should save their money.

Then you should stop wasting your time using criticisms of the anarchic solution which can be equally applied to the statist solution. (zg7666)

Ah. Excuse me. I was unaware that war, the sphere of involuntary exchange, was actually within commerce, the sphere of voluntary exchange, as opposed to being within its own sphere of action. I am also now enlightened to the fact that the calculation argument is the crux-question of whether defense ought to be centralized or decentralized. But of course the old military dictum 'divide and conquer' has absolutely no historical bearing on this matter and can be discarded.....

Every day carries a risk of every possible danger. You cannot say that death is only relevant on the day you die. You must live everyday in such a way that you minimize your risks, or the day you die will be sooner rather than later. That is the whole point of insurance.

Consider for a moment: how are insurance companies to decide on a rate which correctly anticipates a foreign declaration of war which appropriately equips the territory for war but also is not so cripplingly high that only the very wealthy pay it?

So the people will demand that they be taxed to pay for a service that the rich are "already paying for" and that the people themselves refuse to buy? Right...

What you meant to say is that the well connected members of the state will coerce the less connected members of the state into paying for their free stuff.

Ok, so you haven't even been reading my posts. The implication of my snark was exactly identical with your 'suggestion' for me in the sentence above. Yes. A state military is an elitist institution, deciding what is best for others, possibly against their own will.

Being a "libertarian", and probably even an actual factual Marxist for that matter only makes sense to me if it just so happens to be a mere consequence on the way one interprets social facts; just in the way one is an Ohioan by consequence, etc. THere is no reason to reflect or care about such a minute consequence.

After that any actual action that is relevant in any political process to oneself is going to simply be "ultra utilitarian" (for lack of a better word at the moment) - it functions in the same sense as me buying a Mcburger from Mcdonalds, it wouldn't filter, nor could it ever filter upwards into any Platonic / idealistic mentality.

Such a view to me seems to be self defeating, particularly if one takes an arch-liberal style sociological stance (such as anarcho-capitalism): as it woul seem to be just another "fixed idea" or subsidy that would oust the materialism, will to act, radical subjectivism, etc that, to me, are necessarily inherent to a liberal world view.

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

Classic bait and switch. We both know I wasn't talking about peacetime defense. Please be more honest.

Please stop accusing me of dishonesty.

You are arguing that peacetime defense would be limited to free market police action. The only difference between that police action and national defense is scale. You have given no reason why this scaling up is not possible. You talk about free riders, but admit that the state has a free rider "problem" too. I assume you also see the same free rider issue in police action, but you have not claimed that police action is doomed because of it.

And your original example involves cancer insurance. Do you deny that insurance against hurricanes and earthquakes can function where large numbers of claims happen at the same time? And if earthquake coverage is viable, why not war coverage?

Because a state's military cannot surrender itself without also surrendering its territory, which is untrue for a private agency which comprises a fraction of a defense force.

The issue of "territory" is irrelevant. People demand defense of property and self. A state can easily kill its people and confiscate their wealth while maintaining some 'territorial defense'. Or it can allow its people to be pillaged without protection. History has many such examples.

As to the pic:
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. I don't deny free riding. It is actually a good thing. It provides basic utility to the poor without the transaction costs of charity.

Ah. Excuse me. I was unaware that war, the sphere of involuntary exchange, was actually within commerce, the sphere of voluntary exchange, as opposed to being within its own sphere of action.

...? I don't think I said that war was voluntary exchange. It looks to me like you just don't want to engage in my argument.

I am also now enlightened to the fact that the calculation argument is the crux-question of whether defense ought to be centralized or decentralized. But of course the old military dictum 'divide and conquer' has absolutely no historical bearing on this matter and can be discarded.....

You have failed to show one single failing of private defense that cannot also be applied to state defense. But when I show a failing of state defense that does not apply to private defense, you wave it off. Well I guess I will just tally that "1" and move on.

For one, the question of centralization is a false choice. State defense is not inherently more centralized than private defense. A state can employ militia, and private firms can contract whatever organization they prefer.

Two, you imply that decentralization (division) is a bad thing. But states are divided too. There are 50 state-level militaries in the US, in addition to the national one. And they don't see the benefits of this division (eg innovation) that private firms do because they don't compete to attract customers. Private firms are also subject to market forces, therefore they have more incentive to approach ideal firm sizes than a state does.

But I guess that is your point to an extent. You think that only the state is able to grow larger than its ideal firm size, and so only it can handle national defense. You ignore the inefficiency of overgrowing ideal firm size. In the sort term, being too large might be good if market conditions change in favor of your larger size (ie an unexpected war). But in the long run, this inefficiency propagates and defensive capability shrinks in relative terms. And if an unexpected war never comes, the state wasted its valuable resources, killing people by reducing their wealth (rather than through warfare). Either way, people will die before they might otherwise. The question is how to maximize life. Economic calculation is the only way to answer the question of how to employ scarce resources.

Consider for a moment: how are insurance companies to decide on a rate which correctly anticipates a foreign declaration of war which appropriately equips the territory for war but also is not so cripplingly high that only the very wealthy pay it?

Of the 15 largest military spenders, 13 countries spend less than 4% of GDP on defense. The world average is 2.5%.

I think most people would be willing to pay around 1-4% of their income to prevent foreign invasion, especially if they have a choice in the service they buy. We are talking about $300-1200 on a yearly income of $30,000. I wouldn't call that crippling.

Yes. A state military is an elitist institution, deciding what is best for others, possibly against their own will.

Close, but there is no reason to ascribe altruism to the state (or to people in general). People act only to enrich themselves (in this case through coercion or force). The agents of the state do not "decide what is best for others", only what is best for themselves.